This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
How an embattled energy storage project in Acton, California, is threatening faster federal permits.

One hour north of Los Angeles, the small town of Acton is experiencing a battery energy storage buildout — and quickly becoming the must-watch frontline in the backlash against lithium-ion energy storage systems. The flashpoint: wildfires.
Like many parts of California, Acton has hot summers with heavy winds, putting it at elevated risk of the kind blaze that makes national headlines. Battery storage fires, while rare, are a unique threat, with relatively little data available about them to help regulators or the public understand the risk. People in Acton wondered: Would they really be safe if a wildfire engulfed a battery storage site, or if a battery failure sparked a new conflagration?
When L.A. County blessed the first battery energy storage system project in Acton last year, developers and local fire officials said they were doing everything in their power to ensure the batteries would meet safety standards. Residents were far from convinced.
“This will turn our community into industrial hell and it’ll erase us from the face of the Earth,” Jacqueline Ayer, a member of Acton’s town council, told me. Ayer is helping lead the local fight against the projects.
I’ve now spent more than a month researching the fight in Acton. In the process, I’ve learned how much — or little — we know about when battery energy storage and wildfires mix. We’ll get to that later in this story. To be honest, debunking battery fire risk wasn’t why I spent a month on Acton. It was what happened when the fears took hold.
Feeling they’d been failed by both the regulatory approval process and the court system, the Acton project’s opponents turned to their representative in Washington, House Republican Mike Garcia. Though Garcia can’t do anything to stop this particular project, he can severely hinder future ones: As Heatmap can exclusively report, after lobbying from Acton, Garcia inserted language into the annual funding bill for the Department of Energy that would block it from implementing a new rule designed to expedite permits for federally funded battery projects.
“What we’re hoping is that [with Garcia] being at the federal level, he’ll shed some light to the people at the top,” said Ruthie Brock of the activist group Acton Takes Action, “because if the top becomes informed, it’ll trickle down to local governments.”
This is why the Acton fight is so important — it demonstrates the risk of failing to obtain community buy-in, which can ricochet in ways no one intended. The political and media environments are quick to sensationalize the downsides of renewable energy, creating a tinderbox atmosphere in which small local fights can quickly become national ones.
On some level, a fight over battery fires going national was inevitable. Across the country, from New York to Washington state, communities are revolting against battery energy storage sites coming to their backyards. Often, those opposed cite the feared threat of fires or explosions.
Fires in battery energy storage systems, a.k.a. BESS, are quite rare. According to what data is available, the number of fires has stayed relatively flat even as deployment has grown drastically. There were fewer than 10 failure events in the U.S. in 2023, and there have been even fewer so far this year.
But when a fire does happen, experts say it can be quite difficult to put out. In some cases, there’s nothing a community can do other than let the blaze run.
“There’s a lack of consensus. There’s a lot of experts out there providing guidance, and that’s something we’re trying to work on with training throughout the country,” Victoria Hutchinson, an engineer with the Fire Protection Research Foundation, told me. “[It’ll] instill some fear in the meantime we figure out the best approach.”
Information on BESS and wildfires is even less available. Guillermo Rein, a professor of fire science and the editor-in-chief of the journal Fire Technology, told me the matter has not really been studied.
“When I say [BESS are] new, I mean really new,” Rein said. “We hardly know how it works when it gets [on] fire and we don’t have many technologies that are proven to work. We have technologies that we wish will work, but proven technologies that work are very rare. That means we have a new hazard we are struggling to understand and in the meantime, we don’t know how to protect against it.”
Los Angeles County approved Acton’s first battery storage system — Humidor, a 300 megawatt project by Hecate Energy — last summer through an expedited “ministerial” process, the local equivalent of a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act. Ministerial reviews and categorical exclusions are used by regulators to skip the drawn out process of an environmental review because they can reasonably predict a lack of significant impact. Joseph Horvath, a spokesperson for L.A. County Planning, gave me a statement defending the approval and stating BESS projects must meet all local and state zoning and fire codes to receive a ministerial approval.
California had identified the Acton community back in 2021 as a potential site for energy storage to protect against future power shut offs. Acton made sense because it’s close to the SoCal Edison Vincent substation, making it well positioned to connect to the grid. There was also a real sense of urgency: To achieve its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, the state estimates it will need to install a projected 52,000 megawatts or more of battery storage. Humidor is the first of what appears to be multiple projects being planned for the area, including two more Hecate facilities according to materials on the company’s website.
Convinced that a battery boom could mix poorly with extreme fire risk, and that the county moved far too fast to approve Humidor, Acton residents sued. The county, they argued, had little reason to conclude the facility would have an insignificant impact on the environment — so few BESS projects have been approved that the county used the standards from a different kind of project — an electrical substation — to draw that conclusion. L.A. County Planning told me they chose this comparison for reasons including the “purpose of BESS and its connection to the larger network for distributive purposes.”
Rein told me that at least when it comes to the fire risk, this isn’t an accurate comparison, and that there’s not actually enough data to claim such a facility would have an insignificant impact. “I would put great efforts into making sure this facility is safe,” he said. “They can’t just say, I met the regulation, I did enough. Because it’s a new hazard.”
Many of those in Acton opposed to the project believe the approval was rushed, and claim that little information was made available to the public as it was going through the county’s process. Furious residents have told county planners that the Acton town council was not notified in advance that an approval was on its way. They testified before the county board of supervisors that Hecate held only a single public meeting to discuss what it intended to build, with little notice given to potentially concerned citizens.
In my experience as a journalist reporting on large energy projects with serious community impacts, transparency is key to getting local buy-in to build a project. For years I covered the mining industry, where innumerable decades of toxic waste spills and labor scandals have forced companies to really innovate and spend serious dough on obtaining “social license to operate,” a term developers and investors use to describe acceptance to a company’s business practices.
This, of course, differs from the YIMBY school of thought that companies and governments should eschew frustrated municipalities to pursue the overriding net good of climate action. There are certainly merits to this argument, especially when it comes to communities that won’t take yes for an answer, and we’ll be exploring case studies supporting that view in future editions of The Fight.
I’m on the fence about whether Acton is one of those cases, though. Ayer, an environmental engineer by trade, told me she supports decarbonization and wants to see climate action happen. She just wants to feel assured the technology is safe.
If it wasn’t a lithium-ion battery storage facility “I would feel comfortable,” she said. “We will shoulder some of the weight. But it isn’t right that we shoulder all of the weight.”
When I tried to talk to Hecate about Acton’s wildfire concerns and how the company had engaged with the community, a company spokesperson, Bobby Howard, declined to make anyone available for an interview citing “ongoing litigation related to the subject.” Howard provided a factbook that said only that Humidor would “meet or exceed” local and state fire codes — without specifying which codes — and detailed some of the outreach the company did, including the public meeting as well as mailers to “thousands of individuals throughout the greater Los Angeles area, including civically engaged individuals throughout Acton.”
Howard declined to answer questions requesting more information about the company’s public outreach and wildfire planning. He did tell the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that Humidor would have “seismic bracing, safety zones around the perimeter, substantial setbacks from parcel boundaries, gravel breaks and a masonry wall around the facility.”
Stanford University senior research scholar and legal energy expert Michael Wara explained to me that in cases like these, having buy-in from the community is important to avoiding litigation and social blowback. “That is losing,” Wara said. “You have not served your client if you end up in litigation.”
“Having a process by which people are informed about a project and have an opportunity to provide input is important for buy-in for all kinds of projects related to the energy transition if you want to build in a democratic society,” he said. “Is it really the fire risk the community is concerned about?”
When it comes to the Acton battery fight, it’s the fears of fire that scare me the most, not the fire itself.
I sought reasons to be optimistic about putting battery energy storage in areas like Acton that are prone to wildfire because, well, California is essentially one big fire risk zone. James Campbell, a wildfire policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that battery energy storage decreases net wildfire risk compared to gas storage tanks and pipelines. “If we consider the whole-climate trade-offs, battery systems are much safer,” he said.
On its end, Hecate claimed in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors that a BESS fire has never traveled off-site, and that because the fires are fueled by flammable gasses, there is minimal risk of embers traveling elsewhere and igniting grass or bushes. The company pointed me to this letter when I reached out for comment.
“Nothing about fire risk mitigation is about certainty. It’s more, risk mitigation and fire is kind of like wearing a seatbelt,” Wara told me. “If you’re going 120 miles an hour down the highway and you get in a high-speed collision, your seatbelt will not save you. [But] there’s rapid advances in how these systems work.”
In the end, he added, meeting California’s carbon emissions targets will “probably mean building somewhere that there is non-trivial wildfire risk.”
What’s happening to offshore wind should be a cautionary tale for developers considering whether sinking time and money into community relations is really worth it: Last year, coastal fishermen and beach town mayors in New Jersey joined forces with fossil fuel funding and right-wing agitators to foment a conspiracy-infused campaign against offshore wind that has truly rattled the future of the industry.
Part of that offshore wind backlash grew out of New Jersey Republicans in Congress using the pulpit of their offices and filing amendments to legislation. As Garcia takes up Acton’s cause, I do wonder whether battery energy storage might be next. November’s election makes it less likely his language hindering expedited approvals for BESS projects will make it into the final funding bill, and Garcia’s office did not respond to requests to discuss its prospects.
But regardless, it’s an ember that could become a fire of its own.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking about the data center backlash, the midterm elections, and the future of renewables with Columbia Law School’s Romany Webb.
This week’s conversation is a quick catch-up with our friends at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. I hopped on the phone with the center’s deputy director Romany Webb to chat about recent updates they published to anti-renewables opposition analysis. I wanted to dig into their research beyond the toplines — what should people care about in the coming election? How have data centers come up in their research? Or the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the updates. Walk me through what’s new in your research.
So, we published two-year reports that detail renewable energy opposition across the United States; one is our report we’ve published since 2021 and it’s a new edition, and the other is an update of a report we published a few years ago on false claims about renewable energy where we highlight the misinformed used against projects.
This year’s local opposition report found local opposition continues to be widespread and really endemic. There’s been opposition to renewable energy development in every state across the country and we’re seeing it still have a real impact on whether projects get built. But there are small glimmers of hope. We identified 70 new state and local restrictions, which was a decline from previous years — that’s notable.
In select states where there have been a lot of these local restrictions, we’ve seen a drop off, like in Michigan after they enacted their state siting law. These are encouraging signs, and obviously it’s still early days, but it shows some of these state reforms are having a positive impact.
How is data center opposition coming up in your research?
Our reports do not track opposition to data center development. But we do certainly hear anecdotally that debates over data center development are spilling over into debates over renewable energy and battery storage. Often, local communities express concern that these new projects are just being built to power data centers — in some cases when there’s no connection at all, really. But I don’t have data on that link.
You said the law Michigan enacted might be working. Do you know if these laws limiting local opposition actually help with fighting renewable energy opponents, or are they engendering their own backlashes that undermine their effectiveness?
I think it’s too early to say the impacts they’ll have over the medium to long term. In the near term, many of the laws have been successful in accelerating the permitting of renewable energy projects or making it easier for them to be approved. Recent data out of New York shows that many of the projects that have gone through the new siting process are being approved — they’re still fairly long but they’re consistent which is good for development. In other places we’ve seen efforts to limit local government’s ability to adopt restrictions on renewable energy development, like Illinois and Michigan.
Those laws are relatively new, but the data we have shows that drop-off. It suggests the intended effect. But we need more time to know how effective they are and some of those laws have been getting quite a bit of pushback. There’s been a myriad of bills enacted in state legislatures across the country that would roll back those recent reforms or impose new restrictions on renewable development.
How much does the coming midterm election matter for the future of opposition to renewable energy?
I do think the next election will have important implications on whether we continue to see the ever-growing number of state level restrictions adopted or if we see a shift there.
Even if we see a shift in the composition of legislatures, I do think we’ll continue to see community opposition in many places to these projects. We shouldn’t ignore that developing a solar or wind project does have impacts on the local community and so developers really need to take steps to mitigate and manage those impacts.
If they don’t they’ll face the opposition, and even if they are they may face it because of misinformation around these projects.
My last question is, to what extent did the repeal of the IRA impact the ability for local opposition to kill projects in the crib?
I can’t say that definitively. I certainly don’t have the data that would support that sort of claim. And we don’t track that, specifically.
But often, groups that are opposed to renewable energy development will express concerns about the costs of projects or emphasize projects may not be viable without government subsidies. So the rollback of tax credits under the IRA plays into that argument. Of course when you look at the data, renewable energy projects are cheaper and the argument doesn’t hold muster.
But it’s an argument we regularly see pushed by opposition groups. That is how we have seen the IRA repeal affect this.
A developer sues an Arkansas paper, plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – A major utility sued the biggest newspaper in Arkansas over reporting on a data center energy deal. It’s a crucial case to follow.
2. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania – Speaking of hardcore legal strategies, have you ever heard of a data center developer asking every local official to recuse themselves?
3. Loudon County, Virginia – Data Center Alley is giving us our first real glimpse of what data center legislating could look like if Democrats control at least one chamber of Congress.
4. Lane County, Oregon – The second largest city in Oregon is now turning down data centers, just as the governor starts saying no to anything on state land.
What we’ll be watching for on election night.
It’s almost fall 2026 and you know what means: It’s time to figure out the must-watch midterm races amidst the data center backlash.
I’ve spent the past week pulling together a list of the top five congressional races worth watching as bellwethers for the impacts of the data center backlash in the American electorate. This list has three U.S. House races where Republicans are defending seats, one where a House Democrat is defending their seat, and the Senate race many of you are probably most thinking about anyway. Think of it as a tipsheet.
Before we begin, a crucial theme I picked up reviewing the data: The AI infrastructure backlash will almost assuredly be most painful for sitting House Republicans crucial to deciding the future of the lower chamber of Congress.
Very few House Democrats are defending seats in challenging contests. As I’ll explain, at least one of the elected Democrats that would otherwise be most vulnerable in this year’s election cycle — Rep. Marcy Kaptur in Ohio — has already positioned themselves way out ahead on this issue. This means what we’re left with is simply a long list of incumbent GOP lawmakers with votes supporting data centers that newcomer challengers can call out. My best anecdotal comparison in recent history is anger over Covid-19 school closures helping oust incumbent Democrats in Virginia way back in 2021, but expanded to a national scale.
House races strike a balance between nationalized issues (gas prices, federal AI support) and local fights over land use and nearby resource draws like water or power, so this shouldn’t be a surprise. But it is a pivotal trend to remember as we approach Election Day.
The most important data center-centric race for Congress is a rare case where it’s also the one receiving the most media attention: Will Lawrence, a Democrat, versus Republican CongressmanTom Barrett.
To quickly set the scene, this race is happening in Michigan’s 7th District — an agriculture-heavy area of central Michigan I personally know quite well because of its proximity to the college town of Lansing. The district includes what Heatmap Pro clearly shows are multiple challenging areas for any sort of large-scale AI or energy infrastructure, including both Ingham and Clinton County.
Enter Will Lawrence, a cofounder of the Sunrise Movement, who made data center opposition core to his campaign by backing a federal moratorium in early 2026. It was the first issue he highlighted in primary campaign ads and many credit the stance for his surprise upset victory over establishment favorite and former Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam. This week, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson backed a statewide moratorium on new projects if she won. It’s hard to think that would ever happen without Lawrence’s victory.
Lawrence’s incumbent opponent is Rep. Tom Barrett, who over this summer introduced two bills signaling a more aggressive stance on the issue — one that would block federal agencies from overriding local zoning decisions and another banning members of Congress from signing NDAs related to data centers. I do not think these bills will do much on the campaign trail to help him; neither one would actually stop any data centers in Michigan or elsewhere, as both policies address hypothetical cases we’ve not seen before.
Cook Political Report scores this race as a Toss-Up.
In Pennsylvania, you’ll find a race pivotal for control of Congress — and future Republican responses to the data center backlash writ large.
When it comes to the GOP members responding earnestly to the backlash against data centers, you can’t find a better example than Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr., who represents the Keystone State’s 8th congressional district. This area in Pennsylvania’s northeast corner is filled with traditionally moderate suburbs as well as current and former fossil fuel industry communities. Bresnahan won his seat in the last election cycle, defeating former Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright, an elected official I best knew as one of the biggest champions in Congress for cleaning up former gas and mine developments areas.
Bresnahan Jr. is running against Paige Cognetti, the Democratic mayor of Scranton, who is running ads comparing data centers to the legacy of unremediated fossil fuel projects. It’s a clear ploy to use data centers as a signal to voters this newly elected Republican could be straying away from what used to be the norm for the area’s representative in the U.S. House.
“Big companies have come before, taken what they wanted, and left us with their mess to clean up. Now its data centers,” states one Cognetti ad released last month.
Unlike other Republicans in Congress facing data center scrutiny, this GOP freshman acted quickly to introduce legislation supporting communities fighting data centers. In June, Bresnahan put forward a bill that would block federal agencies from permitting new data centers if they were rejected by their host local governments and enjoin federal legal action against towns or counties that deny data centers if they met certain standards for the rejection. It’s a far more aggressive stance than Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge and marks one of the most significant anti-data center bills ever introduced into Congress.
Cook Political Report scores this race as a Toss-Up.
Can an incumbent Democrat protect herself in one of the reddest congressional districts in the country by railing against data centers?
Rep. Marcy Kaptur is someone whose profile I know quite well because she was the first member of Congress I ever interviewed back in 2017. For many years, she’s represented a district on the rim of Lake Erie, and she’s long been the top Democrat on the House Energy-Water Appropriations Subcommittee. In her district, she’s best known for portraying herself as a tooth-and-nail fighter for union labor in a blue collar Ohio congressional district often redrawn by the state’s GOP leadership to be harder each and every cycle. Thanks to her policy chops and moderate positions on other issues, she keeps beating the odds every election, kind of like a Democratic answer to Susan Collins.
This year, Kaptur’s seat is one of the most important for Democrats to defend in the midterms to regain control of the lower chamber. She clearly believes her opponent, State Rep. Derrick Merrin, has a potential political liability in a 2017 vote for data center tax breaks in Ohio. So she’s been making great hay of this issue for a while.
“Will our building trades be true partners in economic growth or temporary labor while facing higher utility bills at home?” Kaptur said on the House floor last December, long before the backlash to AI hyperscalers was a national conversation.
Should Kaptur win with this strategy, and if Democrats retake the House, I expect she will suddenly become one of the most important members in Congress on data center policy thanks to her subcommittee slot.
Cook Political Report scores this race as a Toss-Up.
On Election Night this November, I’ll be watching this race most closely to know if it’ll be an early night — and whether the entire data center sector’s in for a world of hurt.
This Richmond-area congressional brawl is between a historically overperforming incumbent in Rob Wittman, a five term Republican elected in the Bush era, and Henrico County prosecutor Shannon Taylor, a Democrat who won her primary earlier this year over a candidate that supported a federal data center moratorium. Taylor is still critical of the data center sector though, focusing on fighting any increased water and energy cost from facility operations.
Wittman has said voters have “legitimate concerns” about data centers and cosponsored the House version of the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would codify Trump’s pledge into law. Asked this week whether he’d support a data center moratorium, Wittman pivoted to the bill he backed instead. “I support putting guardrails on these data centers. Ultimately, these are local decisions and decisions of states,” he told a local ABC affiliate, adding he also wants to see facilities reduce water use. Wittman concluded, “Ultimately, it’ll be a local decision, but yes there is a federal role for that.”
Between their shared skepticism of a national data center moratorium and wanting companies to pay for what they build, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two candidates’ positions.. So where’s the contrast?
The difference is in the attack ads. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is making data centers a key part of this contest among many others, calling on allied political action committees to specifically make negative ads in Richmond and Norfolk media markets calling out past support for data center tax breaks. Unlike Wittman, Taylor has no tangible record of past support for these projects like explicit statutory support. So on Election Night, because Virginia closes voting early, this race will be my must-watch contest to know how dire not only Republicans’ chances are but more importantly, the data center sector.
Cook Political Report rates it Lean R, noting Wittman has a history of “overperforming politically.” Abigail Spanberger won the district last year.
I only picked one Senate race for this list, because like Virginia’s 1st, the fortunes of the data center sector in this election cycle clearly ride on the Texas Senate race.
Sure, the Lone Star gubernatorial is just as important. Yes, other Senate races are positioned around data centers, like Sherrod Brown vs. Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio and Abdul El-Sayed vs. Mike Rogers in Michigan. But no other contest is as clear of a bellwether for the entire midterm election because Texas is the data center destination in the nation.
On policy, Talarico is running on the mean average anti-data center stance: requiring companies to pay for what they need. It’s fairly boilerplate. Meanwhile, Paxton’s plan is a hodgepodge: it leans heavily on support for Gov. Greg Abbott’s clampdown-in-progress on the industry. He also calls for banning Chinese technology from being used in American data centers or to power them and says he’d support legislation speeding up permits for power to AI hyperscalers.
At the Republican Party convention in Texas this week, Paxton voiced support in an interview with Bloomberg TV for Abbott slowing down development in the state. He also said the country needed data centers because “if we don’t have data centers, we’re going to have trouble with China.” Asked whether he’d support legislation in the Senate that would put “restrictions” on data center development, Paxton offered a confusing answer that refused to say yes or no.
“There’s no bill, obviously, so it’s a hypothe– that’s so — I don’t know what the bill’s going to look like. You could have a data center [bill] drafted one thousand different ways. I would have to look at the bill and then I’d go back to my constituents and say hey, does this address what you’re worried about?” he said.
There’s a good reason reporters are asking. Earlier this year, a Washington Star report highlighted that Hood County requested Ken Paxton as attorney general intervene against a data center development and he did not respond. The issue became a serious campaign spat this past week, too, with Talarico telling CBS News he “just ghosted” the county.
Unlike Virginia, we haven’t seen the data center attack ads pop up… yet. If what’s happening elsewhere in the country is a prologue, I expect them to. Cook Political Report rates this race a Toss-Up and recently polling from their outfit found collapsing GOP support amongst Hispanic voters in the state.